US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

See, the difference is the states that talk about leaving are not pure red states. They are only red because of the electoral college. So they would have to deal with a civil war internally as much as externally.

See, the difference is the states that talk about leaving are not pure red states. They are only red because of the electoral college. So they would have to deal with a civil war internally as much as externally.

Plus, they don't have a modern Lee to make their inferior numbers last so long. (Just kidding... I'm sure a hypothetical civil war in the US would end badly no matter what in the modern age).

That's still a ridiculous statement to make. "It's okay, I'm sure we'll only have a few months of millions of people dying."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

See, the difference is the states that talk about leaving are not pure red states. They are only red because of the electoral college. So they would have to deal with a civil war internally as much as externally.

As demonstrated in one of those articles about the petitions, Austin and San Antonio filed petitions to secede from Texas because they aren't loonies and want to stay with the US.

Or at least, politically punish people who simply make things up? This used to happen you know, when politicians try to hide their dishonesty because they were afraid of being caught.

Now of course, to tell lies is just another tool. The assumption is that people who won't vote for you are the only people who would notice you are lying, so why not lie to the people who would fall for it?

I don't buy into there being a real threat of secession, but do recall the last time our country had a secession problem it was indeed prompted by a presidential election (there were many factors involved, but the confederacy formed as a result of Lincoln's election).

If we follow the example from the past, we've got about 4-5 months before any actual secession takes place. .

Lincoln was definitely one of the biggest sparks. Funny how then and now are largely the result of economics though. Also ironic that Obama often cites Lincoln.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruby Princess

It's okay, I'm sure the war will just last a few months.

It won't be war. Just terrorism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

I remember reading there were more casualties due to the civil war than any other war the USA has fought, is overpopulation really such a big problem in the USA?

Turns out massive battles with muskets and cannons creates a lot of injuries, but not many instant kills. Medicine pretty much sucked until the discovery of penicillin.

That's still a ridiculous statement to make. "It's okay, I'm sure we'll only have a few months of millions of people dying."

It's just a joke playing off the fact that we were acting like this is a re-enactment of the Civil War (where many back then said the same thing)... >_> I know that any war at all would be a war too long...

It's just a joke playing off the fact that we were acting like this is a re-enactment of the Civil War (where many back then said the same thing)... >_> I know that any war at all would be a war too long...

It's pretty much one of the reason when I see seemingly intelligent people cater to bullshits. And besides, modern warfare is fought a little bit differently. There was a reason why Patriot Act defines how an US citizen can meet the classification of a terrorist under certain set of condition. And then you've the necessary justification to send in the unmanned drones....

Crap... now I'm starting to sound like Gundamfan... I'll go cool off with a dose of reality. Later folks.

__________________

Eat and sleep!Sig by RRW.Nanatsu no Taizai! Why haven't you watched it?Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.

But as the article says many genes have been identified having an effect on intelligence and as gene sequencing becomes cheaper and cheaper and computers keep getting faster it is just a matter of years (less than ten IMO) before the DNA rosetta stone is finally deciphered *starts to salivate thinking in all the biological breakthroughs, cat girls ftw >_<*

I am a professional software developer, and I know how hard it is to decompile and reverse engineer binary code. I certainly believe that the programming in the human genome is more complex than the average operating system these days. To reverse engineer and understand an operating system just from reading its binary code is incredibly complicated. Its still a lot easier then DNA reverse engineering, since the operating system as well as its modules and methods are not using much polymorphism to retrieve their results (they are mostly build according to a single responsibility principle and offer a well defined interaction paradigm - using interfaces).

But thats not the main problem. The real problem is how this data is used to create an organic lifeform. It is extremely polymorphic (actually a combination of extreme recursiveness and polymorphism).

This is an attempt to demonstrate this polymorphic recursiveness:

The DNA is the blue print for all sorts of organic basic modules. In the first iteration, these basic modules define the immidiate behaviour of the cell. But when the cell is influenced by the creation of the basic modules, it will alternate its basic module building behaviour according to the DNA (recursive polymorphism in a feedback system).

Complex organic life typically starts as one cell, from this cell more diverse variants of cells are created through cell division. Somehow there is a preprogrammed cell diversfication algorithm in the DNA. It might start randomly with certain cells becoming a little different, and their offsprings become a little different some more (this form of parent cell => child cell creation is another recursive process, and since the cells diversify ever more in the process, it is also polymorphic).

Once there are different types of cells, they seem to organize in patterns that create organs, cells of different types might actually interact in a very complex way to give the organs a predefined way to grow. However, this must be considered a recursive and polymorphic process.

Each of the layers above is based on a very complex interaction algorithm. But this algorithm does not work entirely correct without interaction of each of the three layers. (consider complex life an incredibly complex and polymorphic fractal)

Now even this simplicist take on it results in quite a messy code. In reality this whole process is certainly more complex. To really understand each and every implication of changing certain parts of it, requires modelling and understanding that far surpasses current and near future technology.

Admittedly the DNA contains a lot of garbage information, but there is still plenty of relevant information in it.

So, the best you can hope for, is that scientists make some sense of the data by comparing DNA of individuums with minor differences. However, that doesn't mean they really understand the whole algorithm. They just know how to tweak certain parts of the code to get certain, minor changes. It is still a long way (read very very very long) to the understanding that is needed to completely remodel complex organisms in ways that produce relatively predictable results based on "DNA programming".

And of course, there is the whole problem of defining and predicting intelligence.

And the lack of samples of early human DNA.

And the simple observation that hunter gatherers still exist, even if they're rare. While they're much better than we are at hunting and gathering (at least the kind of hunting that doesn't involve modern or medieval weapons), I've never heard of them being noticeably smarter than we are.

Quote:

“I would wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions, with a good memory, a broad range of ideas and a clear-sighted view of important issues,” Professor Crabtree says in a provocative paper published in the journal Trends in Genetics.

I'm pretty sure all he'd say at first would be "holy shit, what happened? What sorcery is this" in Ancient Greek.

@Jinto I understand what you are trying to say, but my conclusion are based on the fact that human advancement has rarely been a gradual process, along the way there have been a genius that makes a big step in advancing science or technology. So i.e. without Einstein there would be no satellites in orbit and without newton I bet there would have been no landing on the moon. Maybe I am an optimist, nay, a fool, but I stand by my beliefs nevertheless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

And the simple observation that hunter gatherers still exist, even if they're rare.

It is really rare to find any community that does not have access to modern medicine, tools and cloths to some extent and therefore no longer have to use their brains to survive like people thousands of years ago. Hell, my grandmother still had extensive knowledge of herbal remedies (gathered thru word of mouth), modern doctors no longer have to check a book, they only need to do a search on their computers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solace

Turns out massive battles with muskets and cannons creates a lot of injuries, but not many instant kills. Medicine pretty much sucked until the discovery of penicillin.

I will take any day a bullet wound instead of a pellet from a musket which lacked the precision of modern weapons but basically destroyed whatever they hit (there is no such thing as an entry and exit wound). Even modern medicine would have a hard time dealing with such extensive wounds.

I don't know what you guys are arguing, that guy has a thesis that can not be proven untrue, nor true. I can also say dinosaurs all died from the flue (if my memories are correct somebody put such a hypothesis), impossible to prove I say nonsense, but impossible to prove I don't spout nonsense either.

And first of all, what is >intellect<? Rational thinking? Learning? Art? Discoveries? Imagination? Meeh, there's so much way of defining it.

@Jinto I understand what you are trying to say, but my conclusion are based on the fact that human advancement has rarely been a gradual process, along the way there have been a genius that makes a big step in advancing science or technology. So i.e. without Einstein there would be no satellites in orbit and without newton I bet there would have been no landing on the moon. Maybe I am an optimist, nay, a fool, but I stand by my beliefs nevertheless.

That is true. But when you ask people, what they think, mostly based on popular believe... how the future will look like, then it will most likely be a different future.
There are many prime examples of old movies and literature that describe a future of things - that is actually history today according to the timeline - but still far far away future according to the technological progress. But at the same time they fail to predict the rapid progress in other fields. So, predictions based on (popular) believe are kinda fun. But thats it.

Of course there is always a chance for a game changing break through on a another field of science that seriously influences the progress of (many) other fields of science. But even then... if you have some technical knowledge that allows you to see the road blocks on the way... and you see a planet sized road block on that way, you can estimate, that the chances are rather dim for an occurence of such a significant break through in a field of science to overcome it.

@Jinto TBT average people do not create the images of what future technology will look like, you are obviously talking about the fact that in the second half of the xx century rocket science took one of those huge steps I was talking about with the launch of the first artificial earth satellite and many scientists (and science fiction writers) expected there would be many of those huge steps in the near future, that belief was fueled by the human landing of the moon, but all of them were just gradual advancements, so even if nasa's budget hadn't been cut each year after the apollo program cancellation, there would have been no successful missions to mars and beyond.

I am not aware that cat girls (the example and cited, I could talk all day about similar advancements but I will spare you all) are nowadays a common answer to what people expect from the future, I think that even in an otaku only poll there are no expectations at all that someday technology might produce them IRL.

As for the planet sized roadblock, I do not see such thing, just a hurdle that modern technology at the current speed of innovation will tackle in the near future, what I would call a planet sized roadblock is i.e. the speed of light limit which no matter if we invent antimatter reactors would block any possibility to visit but the closest of star systems.

As for the planet sized roadblock, I do not see such thing, just a hurdle that modern technology at the current speed of innovation will tackle in the near future, what I would call a planet sized roadblock is i.e. the speed of light limit which no matter if we invent antimatter reactors would block any possibility to visit but the closest of star systems.

I think it's worth noting that in highly specialized fields of science and engineering, it would take a sufficient level of knowledge on the subject matter to truly appreciate the challenges and difficulties that lies therein. Much like someone unfamiliar with engineering would not be able to see the complexities involved in constructing a modern high performance jet engine, I doubt most of us can really appreciate how daunting a task interpreting the interwoven mechanics of DNA either.

It's interesting though, how you believe that mankind will obtain full mastery over the foundation of life itself in the near future based on optimism, yet at the same time readily dismisses the possibility of interstellar travel for eternity despite both fields of science are really still in their infancy.